Archived: Bluebird Care (North Somerset)

Updated 19 November 2015

We carried out this inspection under Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act 2008 as part of our regulatory functions. This inspection was planned to check whether the provider is meeting the legal requirements and regulations associated with the Health and Social Care Act 2008, to look at the overall quality of the service, and to provide a rating for the service under the Care Act 2014.

This inspection took place on 1 October 2015 and was announced. The provider was given 48 hours’ notice of the visit to the office in line with our current methodology for inspecting domiciliary care agencies.

The inspection team consisted of an adult social care inspector and an expert by experience with expertise in care of older people. An expert-by-experience is a person who has personal experience of using or caring for someone who uses this type of care service. The expert by experience telephoned eight people who used the service to gain their views and experiences of the service. They also spoke with four relatives on the telephone. At the office we spoke with the registered manager, the registered person, two team leaders and three care workers.

Prior to the inspection visit we gathered information from a number of sources. We looked at the information received about the service from notifications sent to the Care Quality Commission by the registered manager. We did not request a Provider Information Return (PIR) prior to our inspection. The PIR is a form that asks the provider to give some key information about the service, what the service does well and the improvements they plan to make. The provider therefore provided us with a range of documents, such as copies of internal audits, action plans and quality audits, which gave us key information about the service and any planned improvements.

We also obtained the views of service commissioners from the local council who also monitor the service provided by the agency. We also had comments about the service from four healthcare professionals.

We looked at documentation relating to nine people who used the service, eight staff recruitment and training records and records relating to the management of the service. This took place in the office.

Updated 19 November 2015

We undertook this announced inspection on 1 October 2015. Bluebird Care (North Somerset) provides a range of domiciliary care services which include hourly support, administration of medication and food preparation.

There is a registered manager in post. A registered manager is a person who has registered with the Care Quality Commission to manage the service. Like registered providers, they are ‘registered persons’. Registered persons have legal responsibility for meeting the requirements in the Health and Social Care Act 2008 and associated Regulations about how the service is run.

People who used the service and their relatives informed us that they were satisfied with the care and services provided. They said that people were treated with respect and people were safe when cared for by the service. People’s needs were carefully assessed. Risk assessments had been carried out and they contained guidance for staff on protecting people. Senior staff prepared appropriate and detailed care plans with the involvement of people and their representatives. When needed or agreed with people or their representatives, people’s healthcare needs were monitored.

The arrangements for the recording, storage, administration and disposal of medicines were satisfactory and further improvements were being made by making the process electronic. The service had an infection control policy and staff were aware of good hygiene practices.

Staff had been competently recruited and provided with training to enable them to care effectively for people. Staff had the necessary support and supervision from their supervisors and manager. They knew how to recognise and report any concerns or allegations of abuse.

There were enough staff to meet people's needs. People’s preferences were recorded and arrangements were in place to ensure that these were responded to. Staff were knowledgeable regarding the individual care needs and preferences of people. Reviews of care had been carried out so that people could express their views and experiences regarding the care provided. Where required staff supported people with their meals and ensured that that people’s dietary needs were met.

The service was responsive to the needs of people. Concerns or complaints were promptly responded to. There were comprehensive arrangements for quality assurance. Regular audits and checks had been carried out by senior staff and the director. We saw a record of compliments received and these indicated that people were satisfied with the quality of care provided.